• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.

Tinto Talks #30 - 25th September 2024

Welcome to another Tinto Talks, the time of the week when we give you new information about our entirely super secret upcoming game with the codename Project Caesar.

Today we will talk about how conquest works and how integrating the new locations you have conquered will work. With conquest, we are talking about how you take territory through warfare. For how the actual military campaigns work, I recommend reading Tinto Talks 22, 23 and 24.

Casus Belli
To start a war many feel that you need a casus belli for it, which we will refer to a CB for the rest of this talk. If you lack a CB and start a war you will gain some aggressive expansion and lose some stability. Now while this may not be something you may always want, it is a more lenient way to recover instead of spending precious paper mana like in EU4. However, there are multiple ways to get a CB in this game.

Now, Project Caesar does not have a ‘Fabricate Claim’ button that magically creates a CB on any nation, nor do we have a system of claims, but you have several different options to get a CB.

First of all, there is the super old school way of getting one from an event. This may not cater to everyone's playing style, as it is way too random, but if it was good enough for your parents back in 2001, it is good enough for.. Eh, n/m.

Secondly, we have the option of calling a Parliament and asking them to come up with a valid reason for war against a nearby country. This is powerful, but unless you have a high Crown Power, you may need to negotiate with your Estates for their backing. And Parliaments can not be called every month either, democracy is not even invented yet.

Finally we have the way of creating a CB, when there is a more or less legitimate way to one. First of all, creating a CB on a country requires you to have a spy network in the target country, similar to how claim fabrication works in EU4, but you also need to have some sort of reason to create the type of CB you want. If you let's say play Denmark and want to take back Skåne from Sweden, as you have cores on it, then you can create a ‘Conquer Core’ CB on them, or if they have used Privateers in sea zones where you have a Maritime Presence, you can create another CB on them. There are 50+ different CB you can create depending on circumstances, including everything from ‘Flower Wars’ for countries of Nahuatl religion, ‘Dissolving the Tatar Yoke’ for the tributaries under that International Organization, or ‘Humiliating Rivals’.

war_overview.png

31 allies and subjects for Bohemia, hmmm…

Just remember.. No CB is best CB!


War Goals
Whether you decide that a small border adjustment is needed, or you wish to wage a total war, you need to pick which War Goal you wish to pursue. Different casus belli will allow you to pick different War Goals and the War Goal you pick impacts the cost of conquest as well. A conquer CB will make taking land cheaper, while a ‘humiliation CB will make them more expensive.

A War Goal for a province requires you to occupy that entire province, while a Naval Superiority War Goal will give you a bonus score for blockading the enemy, and defeating their navy if possible.

If your War Goal is fulfilled then the warscore from it ticks up to a maximum of 25, and the total impact from battles in this game can be worth up to 50, while occupations and blockades have no cap and can reach over 100 warscore if possible.

In Project Caesar, therefore, not every war is necessarily a total war like some previous games we have made.

If the War Goal is not fulfilled, it is only possible to get 100% War Score if the winning side controls all of the losing side's locations, and the losing side controls no towns or cities.

This means that if you have your wargoal taken care of, winning some important battles and occupying some land, you will be able to force a reasonable peace on someone.

war_goal.png

Give me liberty or ehh.. annexation?


Integration
So what do you do then, when you have signed a peace and got some new land to your country?

First of all, it is not as simple as a location being a core or not, as Project Caesar introduces a new system of integration for locations. There are four states of integration in this game, first of all the conquered locations, which have a high separatism, lower control, and make pops unlikely to convert or assimilate. This is the state of any location you conquer that is not a core of yours. When a location becomes integrated, separatism drops to one fifth of the previous levels, and control has a higher maximum. When a location becomes a core, the minimum control is higher, and your primary and accepted cultures grow more, while minorities become stagnant. We also have the colonized status, which is after you have colonized a location, and it is not yet a core. A colonized location has lower maximum control.

What is separatism then? Well, it is the reduction of satisfaction for pops that are not of the primary culture. This is very likely to make the locations very unproductive for quite some time.

A location becomes a core automatically if it's integrated OR colonial, and at least 50% of the pops are of the primary or accepted cultures of that country.

core.png

It is beneficial to get your locations to become your cores…

How do you integrate a location then? Well, this is the challenge in Project Caesar, as you do not have any magic paper mana to spend on it, but instead you need to use one of the members of your cabinet to integrate it. At the start of the game, a cabinet member can integrate an entire province at once, but in the Age of Absolutism you have an advance that will let you integrate an entire area at once.

This integration is not instant, but depends on many factors, like the status and the population living in the locations affected, but on average integrating a province may take between 25 and 50 years.

integration.png

And what are all of these factors then?


Stay tuned, as in next week's Tinto Talks, we will talk about how peace treaties themselves work, and which ones we have.
 
  • 207Like
  • 74Love
  • 17
  • 16
  • 9
Reactions:
Since it will now take 25-50 years to core/integrate provinces, does that mean that creating large empires will be almost impossible unless there are systems like integrating a vassal in EU4, correct?

Another question, if my cabinet is composed, for example, of 4 members, can I assign 3 of them to the task of creating cores, or am I limited to one type of action at a time?

Unfortunately, we are too used to EU4 where having the core is fundamental, but maybe in PC a province or an area without a core might not be entirely useless. Am I wrong?

Furthermore, it seems that having a CB is not that crucial since stability is managed differently. In PC, it seems that going to war against a one-province state without a CB is much more advantageous compared to EU4, where the -2 stability hit was felt much more, especially compared to attacking a larger nation.
 
Last edited:
I normally don't post on the Forums, but since a lot of people seem to be unhappy with how expansion will work in project Ceaser. I just wanted to say I am glad to hear about it and hope it does not change and i have trust that the game will still be really fun and enjoyable to play.
I absolutely hate how in games like Eu4 where the game is supposed to go until 1800 you get bored and stop playing around 1500-1600 depending on how strong you starting nation was. So if your powerbase grows a lot slower i am sure it will make the game a lot more enjoyable and fun.
One thing that does worry me is how fast will the game run in the later time periods? Almost all Paradox games have a issue where once you reach the late game, it slows down so much it's no longer fun to play.
 
  • 2
  • 1Like
Reactions:
With this start date, forming PL-Lith Union might not even be guaranteed. If you want to keep things somewhat historical, Poland would need to have a female ruler with Piast ancestors (not nessesary being Piast herself)... so a bit like reversed Ibberian weeding ;)
Heck, if Casmir had some sons he'd never pick his nephew as successor ( who, again, if had any sons wouldn't split Polish and Hungarian crowns between his daughters, but instead tried to force both of crowns going to male successor)... keeping that in mind such historical unions aren't guaranteed- but there should be a mechanic in place to make such unions happen, under given conditions: no legal heir and nearby ruler of same dynasty/ ancestry
Or rules of nearby countries being of opposite sex with slme additional requirements (like possitive opinion + lack of wars in last 50years or so...)
And I'm glad those decisions are gone but I still have to ask to know.
 
Since the timer for integration is so long, I'm afraid it will just become the meta to have your entire council integrating provinces (at least early game) instead of using any of the many other unique actions. And when playing, does it feel like an annoying roadblock to your expansion or more of a (needed) speedbump to slow down snowballing?
I think we are too accustomed to the mindset of EU4, where territorial conquest and expansion were the first things to think about to win the game. PC seems to give more weight and power to other gameplay approaches, making them more effective. Play tall, trading, diplomacy, etc., seem to be much stronger and not just subservient to the mere conquest of additional provinces. I'm very happy of this
 
  • 3Like
Reactions:
@Johan Could you describe a bit more differences between EU4 warscore system and Project Caesar warscore system?

There are several issues with EU4 warscore, like (as you mentioned) necessity to go to total war to actually get what you want from the war; Arbitrary and very limiting province warscore values; AI refusing to end the war even if that would be beneficial for them. How are those handled in PS?

Is 25% from controling the wargoal enough? I think controlling the wargoal would make sure that it will give enough warscore the aim of the war in CB so be fulfilled. For example, if done kind of subjegation CB exist (aim - make the target Into a subject, wargoal - contol capital) would occupying just the capital long enough make it possible enforce this demand?

How occupying capital of the nation influences the warscore? And how AI reacts to losing control of the main city?

How the warscore price of the locations/provinces is calculated. It's out possible to fully annex entire (big) county, or at least subjegate then if you control them completelly?
 
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions:
I imagine this is an abstraction to show that pops are adopting your culture?
Exactly. Like the Roman population after the barbarian invasions in Italy and France. They didn’t just disappear; it’s just that since their leaders became the Franks and the Lombards/Longobards, after a few generations, when someone asked them who they were, they no longer answered "we are Romans" but "we are Franks/Lombards."
 
my bad, confused levant with Egypt, which is... well not the same region at all. Sorry.

Regarding the player possibility of doing better than history, it definitively is. But at the same time, it shouldn't be shocking he won't have the same tools than those that were historically available to administer his conquests.

The levant doesn't seem to be THAT big of an area to integrate however, so I'd say existing system ought to work somewhat properly, shoudn't they ? maybe give a slight bonus to integration speed based on the amount of "land" you already have / your total "integrated" pop, but I think existing system should properly represent this, eventually with some more tweaks to properly represent why this integration was fast, but I'd expect culture difference / proximity to give enough boni for this.
I mean the Levant is actually huge. Just not in the Mercator projection. We are talking about an area larger than Poland/Germany. Damascus/Aleppo are among the largest cities in the world at that time. Pre and post black death. But we are not disagreeing with each other anyways.
 
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
I imagine this is an abstraction to show that pops are adopting your culture?

But the game already has proper mechanics for adopting culture. Also Johan wrote:

There are four states of integration in this game, first of all the conquered locations, which have a high separatism, lower control, and make pops unlikely to convert or assimilate.

So assimilating is unlikely to play a role here.

There has to be some reason for this, but I don't know what can it be.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Would the integration be faster if I relocate pops of my own culture and religion from my own land to the newly conquered territory?

This was historically done plenty of times, especially along provinces that bordered other nations.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
But the game already has proper mechanics for adopting culture. Also Johan wrote:



So assimilating is unlikely to play a role here.

There has to be some reason for this, but I don't know what can it be.
I have no idea what else could it be. I think that assimilating might have two "layers", with this being a default way to show the domination of your culture and if you want to manually speed it up you can actively assimilate. But I'm as lost as you are.
 
So assimilating is unlikely to play a role here.

There has to be some reason for this, but I don't know what can it be.
Pops in conquered provinces don't convert or assimilate, but once it's cored those that are unaccepted do start assimilating, though very slowly. I agree with his reasoning why their population would stagnate in the meantime.
 
I'll mention that conquest of land isn't something that exclusively strengthens the conqueror, but will also weaken the conquered. If I as France bereave Spain of Catalonia, sure, it might only operate at 10% of its potential under my rule, but it will operate at 0% potential for Spain - on account of them no longer owning it. You may only strengthen yourself marginally in the short term, but you can weaken your immediate enemies significantly.
This is a valid point, however it'll still depend on the specific lands in question. As the game progresses, I imagine most countries (at least the major ones) will have a kernel of high-value, fully integrated provinces that provide the most resources, surrounded by less-integrated or even completely unintegrated provinces providing much less resources - they'd be, therefore, of far less importance to the country in question (although by how much exactly, I do not know, since we don't yet have any details on that). Plus, it will also feed into the control mechanic, where the remote provinces, even though they may be fully integrated, will inevitably provide significantly less to the economy and manpower because of the lower control. And usually it's those fringe, frontier provinces that'll be changing hands most often; I imagine that you wouldn't be able to carve arbitrary lands out of your rival's territory, only those you're bordering with, so the overall hit to the rival's economy might not necessarily be as strong as the amount of lands taken might suggest.

It'd be good to learn all the relevant values and modifiers, but I imagine the devs themselves don't know them just yet, since the game's still deep in development.

Also, it may be just me, but denying your rival valuable land is not as fun as exploiting said land yourself :)
 
Last edited:
  • 1
Reactions:
occupations and blockades have no cap and can reach over 100 warscore if possible.
Does this mean there’s no hard cap on warscore and peace treaties can surpass 100 warscore cost under certain circumstances? Given all the new tools to organically simulate overextension and its consequences it seems to me that a hard cap is no longer as necessary as it once was.
 
If you win when you control all your opponent's locations, how do wars against unlanded nations work? Can you fight wars against unlanded powers?
 
  • 1
Reactions:
I have no idea what else could it be. I think that assimilating might have two "layers", with this being a default way to show the domination of your culture and if you want to manually speed it up you can actively assimilate. But I'm as lost as you are.

Maybe it's related to the "50%" threshold? To make it easier to achieve? IDK.

Pops in conquered provinces don't convert or assimilate, but once it's cored those that are unaccepted do start assimilating, though very slowly. I agree with his reasoning why their population would stagnate in the meantime.

But according to this popup:

core.png


It's about growth. So it seems (I might be mistaken) that only primary and accepted pops are multiplying, while conquered people don't. And that's what's puzzling. I get it that conquest can impact happiness or loyalty, but... fertility?

I still remember situation from Stellaris from few years back when pop growth was also altered in an unrealistic and even stupid way. I love Star Trek, so I was usually accepting migration treaties to have a multi-species empire. But I noticed that when alien pops arrived on my planets - only they were growing. Humans were completely stagnant. From what I remember devs wanted minorities to grow and they achieved that by halting the growth of non-minority and greatly prioritizing growth of minorities. It was an absurd idea (which led to me never accepting alien pops until devs fixed it), but that's just a game. If devs decide pops should stop growing altogether for whatever reason - they will stop growing.
 
  • 4Like
Reactions:
It's about growth. So it seems (I might be mistaken) that only primary and accepted pops are multiplying, while conquered people don't. And that's what's puzzling. I get it that conquest can impact happiness or loyalty, but... fertility?
I interpreted that as they don't grow, but stagnate, meaning they don't grow beyond the reproduction rate. And that stagnation, coupled with migration and slow assimilation will eventually erode and replace them with primary and accepted culture pops, but on thinking further on this, I could be wrong and be influenced by my experiences being a minority in a country whose majority (or say policies) while aren't really hostile towards us, aren't friendly either.
 
I interpreted that as they don't grow, but stagnate, meaning they don't grow beyond the reproduction rate. And that stagnation, coupled with migration and slow assimilation will eventually erode and replace them with primary and accepted culture pops, but on thinking further on this, I could be wrong and be influenced by my experiences being a minority in a country whose majority (or say policies) while aren't really hostile towards us, aren't friendly either.
I don't think that actually makes any sense whatsoever. Are all of these countries engaging in mass sterilisation campaigns against minorities or something??

An easy counterexample is how the proportion of african-americans in many states in the southern US actually increased during the early 18th century, even though they were definitely not an accepted culture.
 
Last edited:
  • 3
  • 1
Reactions: